The EAT considers whether the employer had done all that was reasonable to discover if the claimant was disabled because of his dyslexia

By Vivienne Green, Employment Rights Lawyer

Background

Mr Kamran Hussain had worked as a firefighter for the London Fire Commissioner since 2004. In 2017, concerns were raised about whether he might be dyslexic after he completed a British Dyslexia Association screening checklist, which suggested mild dyslexia. His employer then arranged a further screening assessment (the LADS test), which reported a low probability of dyslexia. As a result, no further assessment was carried out at that stage. In 2019, following a review during a period of sickness absence, the employer commissioned an educational psychologist's assessment, which confirmed that Mr Hussain had dyslexia and that it amounted to a disability. The employer accepted that it had actual knowledge of his disability from October 2019 onwards. 

Mr Hussain brought a range of discrimination claims, including a claim that the employer should have known about his dyslexia earlier and therefore should have considered additional reasonable adjustments before October 2019. He also brought a claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 relating to anxiety and depression. He argued that his refusal to provide a statement during an internal workplace matter arose from his mental health condition and that he was subsequently subjected to unfavourable treatment because of it. The Employment Tribunal rejected these claims, concluding that the employer did not have the necessary knowledge of his dyslexia before October 2019 and dismissing the section 15 complaint. Mr Hussain appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). 

Outcome

The EAT dismissed the appeal concerning knowledge of Mr Hussain's dyslexia. It found that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the employer had taken reasonable steps to investigate whether he was disabled. The employer had arranged screening, sought further information and received a result indicating a low probability of dyslexia. Given that Mr Hussain had worked for around 14 years without previously raising concerns about dyslexia or showing evidence of a substantial impact on day-to-day activities, the tribunal was entitled to find that the employer neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known that he was disabled before October 2019. 

However, the EAT allowed the appeal in relation to the section 15 Equality Act claim. It held that the tribunal had misunderstood the nature of the claim by treating Mr Hussain's mental health condition itself as the "something arising in consequence of disability". The alleged "something arising" was, in fact, his refusal to provide a statement, which he argued resulted from his anxiety and depression. The EAT found that the tribunal had failed to apply the correct legal test and had not properly addressed the issue set out in the agreed list of issues. That aspect of the claim was remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration. 

Comments / Key takeaways

This judgment highlights the limits of an employer's duty to investigate a potential disability. Employers must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether an employee is disabled, but the extent of that duty depends on the information available at the time. The EAT confirmed that the relevant question is whether the employer did all that was reasonable in the circumstances to establish the existence of a disability, rather than whether further enquiries could have been made.

The case also provides an important reminder about the operation of section 15 Equality Act claims. Tribunals must clearly identify the specific "something arising in consequence" of a disability and examine whether the unfavourable treatment was because of that consequence, rather than because of the disability itself. Failing to distinguish between a disability and its effects may amount to an error of law. For trade unions and workplace representatives, the judgment underlines the importance of clearly identifying how a disability gives rise to particular behaviours, actions or workplace difficulties when advancing claims under section 15. 

Hussain v London Fire Commissioner [2026] EAT 159